ChiefsPlanet
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Football Warren Sapp on Dorsey and LJ (NFL.com chat) (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=207780)

Amnorix 05-20-2009 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claythan (Post 5777167)
Jilly, he is rough, but he is right. Thomas was fairly one-dimensional. All he could do was rush the passer. The Chiefs yanked him off the field in the AFC Championship game once because the Bills were running right at him.
He's right that you CAN be great even if one dimensional, but usually the path to greatness is alot easier if you're really damn good at everything.

That's especially true of front 7 defensive players. To be considered great, you should be great at both. If not, then you really better be about the best EVER at whatever it is you're great at, to balance off being average at the rest.

And I wouldn't take DT as the best ever front 7 player. Not even close. And taht's one reason why.

Amnorix 05-20-2009 03:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sully (Post 5777195)
LT and DT had one skill. And it was good enough to make them HoFers and all time greats.
LT had one skill? You're wrong. LT was extremely good against the run also.

BB showed film one of LT showing how great he was at a number of things. One clip I remember in particular is him flattening out down the LOS and tackling the RB before he slipped through the hole htat had been created for him on the RIGHT side of the offense (when LT played on the offensive left).

DT had one skill. LT was by far the better player, because he was as good at rushing the passer, and was also very good at everything else. LT was probably the greatest LB ever because of his total package of skills.

Quote:
So it depends on the player. Rare players are good enough to dominate just by doing one thing extremely well. Anyone wanna argue that Dorsey is one of those rare athletes?
This part I agree with.

Tribal Warfare 05-20-2009 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnorix (Post 5780398)
e. LT was probably the greatest LB ever because of his total package of skills.
It may sound a little "homerish" but that designation could go to Bobby Bell the 1st LT.

milkman 05-20-2009 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare (Post 5780479)
It may sound a little "homerish" but that designation could go to Bobby Bell the 1st LT.
It isnt homeristic.
Bobby Bell was a better player.

Most forget how great he really was.
The most complete LB ever.

Amnorix 05-20-2009 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare (Post 5780479)
It may sound a little "homerish" but that designation could go to Bobby Bell the 1st LT.
Just a little homerish I would say. ;)

milkman 05-20-2009 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnorix (Post 5780527)
Just a little homerish I would say. ;)
No it isn't.

Bell was every bit as good as LT as a pass rusher, and better as both a run defender and in pass coverage.

The only reason that LT is remembered is because he was asked to rush the passer more than Bell, and sacks weren't a stat in Bell's day.

But he is thought to have over 80 sacks in his career, and I highly doubt that he rushed the passer 1 time for every 4 times that LT did.

Hammock Parties 05-20-2009 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 5780555)
No it isn't.

Bell was every bit as good as LT as a pass rusher, and better as both a run defender and in pass coverage.

The only reason that LT is remembered is because he was asked to rush the passer more than Bell, and sacks weren't a stat in Bell's day.

But he is thought to have over 80 sacks in his career, and I highly doubt that he rushed the passer 1 time for every 4 times that LT did.
Put Bell on a mega-market team in the comparatively media-saturated 80s and he'd have been as big as LT.

Amnorix 05-20-2009 04:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 5780555)
No it isn't.

Bell was every bit as good as LT as a pass rusher, and better as both a run defender and in pass coverage.

The only reason that LT is remembered is because he was asked to rush the passer more than Bell, and sacks weren't a stat in Bell's day.

But he is thought to have over 80 sacks in his career, and I highly doubt that he rushed the passer 1 time for every 4 times that LT did.
:shrug: I won't pretend that I'm old enough to have seen him play, but I haven't heard him listed at the very top of linebackers in most "all time" NFL teams and the like.

milkman 05-20-2009 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnorix (Post 5780585)
:shrug: I won't pretend that I'm old enough to have seen him play, but I haven't heard him listed at the very top of linebackers in most "all time" NFL teams and the like.
Because he was in the AFL for much of his career and was overshadowed by one of the very best MLBs to ever play the game in Willie Lanier.

If, however, sacks had been a stat in his day, and he had been used in the same way as LT, then he would have been the one overshadowing Willie, and I say this as the biggest Willie Lanier fan on this board, my favorite all time player.

But the fact is, having watched both, if I had to choose between Bobby Bell or LT to build around, I'm takin Bobby, and it wouldn't take me more than a second to decide.

Hammock Parties 05-20-2009 04:31 PM
Bobby Bell didn't do coke, either.

Amnorix 05-20-2009 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 5780655)
Because he was in the AFL for much of his career and was overshadowed by one of the very best MLBs to ever play the game in Willie Lanier.

If, however, sacks had been a stat in his day, and he had been used in the same way as LT, then he would have been the one overshadowing Willie, and I say this as the biggest Willie Lanier fan on this board, my favorite all time player.

But the fact is, having watched both, if I had to choose between Bobby Bell or LT to build around, I'm takin Bobby, and it wouldn't take me more than a second to decide.
:shrug: Get a non-Chiefs fan to weigh in and I'll start listening.

Not trying to be a jerk, but homerism is rampant everywhere, and I'm guilty of it too. I never saw Bell play, but I've hardly ever heard him held in the type of reverence you describe. Maybe he was all that, but I'd believe it alot mroe if I heard it from an old-time NFL player or whatever.

milkman 05-20-2009 04:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnorix (Post 5780693)
:shrug: Get a non-Chiefs fan to weigh in and I'll start listening.

Not trying to be a jerk, but homerism is rampant everywhere, and I'm guilty of it too. I never saw Bell play, but I've hardly ever heard him held in the type of reverence you describe. Maybe he was all that, but I'd believe it alot mroe if I heard it from an old-time NFL player or whatever.
FTR, I have heard John Clayton discuss Bell in much the same way as I have.

As for me, I don't think that many would call me a homer.

Buehler445 05-20-2009 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnorix (Post 5780693)
:shrug: Get a non-Chiefs fan to weigh in and I'll start listening.

Not trying to be a jerk, but homerism is rampant everywhere, and I'm guilty of it too. I never saw Bell play, but I've hardly ever heard him held in the type of reverence you describe. Maybe he was all that, but I'd believe it alot mroe if I heard it from an old-time NFL player or whatever.
milkman isn't much of a homer. For years he has had Bobby Bell as one of the best ever, so it isn't a new development either.

Plus he's old enough to have been a rational thinking adult when Bell played :D.

Really though, he hasn't ever though TG was one of the all time greats. Shit, even most of you guys think he's an all time great! He's been very candid about Green and Holmes and especially LJ.

I wouldn't call milkman a homer.

Sully 05-20-2009 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnorix (Post 5780398)
LT had one skill? You're wrong. LT was extremely good against the run also.

BB showed film one of LT showing how great he was at a number of things. One clip I remember in particular is him flattening out down the LOS and tackling the RB before he slipped through the hole htat had been created for him on the RIGHT side of the offense (when LT played on the offensive left).

DT had one skill. LT was by far the better player, because he was as good at rushing the passer, and was also very good at everything else. LT was probably the greatest LB ever because of his total package of skills.



This part I agree with.
I'll defer to you on that. I didn't have nearly the exposure to LT as DT.

Frankie 05-21-2009 10:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jilly (Post 5776474)
ROFL Depends on what story you get
Oh I bet it's Sulleo and Jilliet.

OctoberFart 05-21-2009 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claythan (Post 5772192)
He's not. He's comparing himself to Dorsey. Sapp played 3-4 DE for a season in Oakland, and horribly sucked at it.
Problem is in your lack of football knowledge. In Oakland Sapp was wasted in a 2 gap scheme which was a complete waste of his strengths. Clancy P plays more of a 30/4-3 under group with 3-4 players and is more of a 1 gap penetrating scheme. Dorsey could fit in that scheme much better than a 2 gap 3-4.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:16 AM.
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.